NOW was active at every level of government and worked to eliminate sex discrimination. The organization participated in demonstrations, court cases, and proffered advice when consulted. NOW was also in constant contact with local and federal agencies designed to enforce current antidiscrimination laws. In some instances NOW was simply involved to offer support, but remained active in as many ways as possible in order to help achieve equal rights for women.

This series is divided into four subseries reflecting this involvement:

Subseries 1. Equal Rights Act

Subseries 2. Sex Discrimination in the Work Place

Subseries 3. EEOC and PHRC

Subseries 4. Other Legal Concerns

Subseries 1.Equal Rights Act

Scope and Content Notes:

In 1923, the Equal Rights Act (ERA) was written by Alice Paul, head of the National Women’s Party, and introduced into Congress by Senator Curtis and Representative Anthony later that year. The ERA was written in response to the 14th Amendment that granted equal rights to all men, but because of wording did not include women. It was reintroduced in every session of Congress from 1923 to 1970 and was buried or defeated every year. In 1971, the House of Representatives finally approved ERA without amendments, but the Senate did not approve it until 1972. Congress agreed to set an arbitrary time limit of seven years for ratification by the states. After much political action by NOW and other women’s groups, the deadline for ratification was extended to June 30, 1982. On the deadline date, ERA was stopped three states short of ratification. Because these three states failed to ratify ERA there is no federal protection for equal rights, and the bill is currently reintroduced into Congress every year. This subseries includes information on the Equal Rights Amendment, 1968-1982. Materials included are briefings, positions and statements from legislators, testimonies, mailings and correspondence, publications, newsclippings, and information from campaigns and rallies attempting to extend the deadline for ratification.

Folder

19

House and Senate Votes, 1971

Folder

20

HJ Resolution 208, 1971

Folder

21

Harrisburg Hearing Notes, 1971

Folder

22

Amendment Analysis, 1976-1978

Folder

23

ERA Briefing, 1978

Folder

24

Bayh Amendment, 1978

Folder

25

Legal History, 1973-1975

Folder

26

Illinois Laws and Legislators, 1979

Folder

27

Division 35 and ERA, 1978

Folder

28

McGovern and ERA, 1972

Folder

29

Names and Issues in senate, 1978

Folder

30

House Resolution 638, 1978

Folder

31

Letters to State Congressmen, 1978

Folder

32

Tally Sheet, 1978

Folder

33

Senate Voting Records, 1978

Folder

34

Letters From Legislators, 1978

Folder

35

ERA Extension Resolution, 1978

Folder

36

Correspondence Between Legislators and NOW, 1978

Folder

37

Bumpers Mailing, 1978-1979

Folder

38

Mailing Lists, 1978

Folder

39

ERA Congressional Remarks, 1970-1978

Box 22

Folder

01-05

Testimonies

Folder

6

John Mack Carter, 1970

Folder

7

Norman Dorsen, 1970

Folder

8

Catherine East, 1970

Folder

9

Thomas Emerson, 1970

Folder

10

Carol Forbes, 1970

Folder

11

Paul Freund, 1970

Folder

12

Fred Harris, 1972

Section: S.I. Hayakawa

Folder

14

Aileen Hernandez, 1971

Folder

15

Leo Kanowitz, 1970

Folder

16

Elizabeth Koonts, 1972

Folder

17

Judith L. Laws, 1971

Folder

18

Margery C. Leonard, 1970

Folder

19

Ethel Ernest Murrell, 1970

Folder

20

Ester Polen, 1972

Folder

21

Marguerite Rawalt, 1970

Folder

22

Bernice Sandler, 1970

Folder

23

Other Testimonies, 1977-1978

Folder

24

ERA Supporters/Extension Boycotts, 1978

Folder

25-26

Various Mailings, 1970-1972

Folder

27

Public Relations, 1976

Folder

28

Support Correspondence, 1976

Folder

29

Mailing Campaign, 1978

Folder

30-31

ERA and the Draft, 1971

Folder

32

ERA Impact, 1971

Folder

33

Matter of Justice and ERA, 1971-1972

Folder

34

ERA Ratification, 1972

Folder

35

National Now Efforts, 1972-1974

Folder

36

Recession, 1974

Folder

37

More Perfect Union, The Report of the National Commission on the Observance of International Women’s Year, 1976

Box 23

Folder

1

The Humanist, 1978

Folder

2

ERA Reports, 1978

Folder

3

Media Campaign, 1978

Folder

4

Issue Information, 1978

Folder

5

Protective Laws, 1978

Folder

6

ERA State of Emergency, 1979

Folder

7

Is ERA Necessary?, 1979

Folder

8

ERA Missionary Project, 1982

Folder

9

New York Times Magazine, 1970

Folder

10-12

Passage and Ratification Clippings, 1970-1978

Folder

13-14

Extension Clippings, 1978

Folder

15

Editorials, 1974-1975

Folder

16

Articles, 1986-1987

Folder

17

Position Papers, 1970

Folder

18-19

Anti-ERA Information, 1973-1979

Folder

20-21

APA Conventions and Campaigns, 1975-1978

Folder

22-23

Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Bills of Special Interest to Women, 1971

Folder

24

ERA and Catholics, 1978

Folder

25

Council for Women’s Rights, 1978

Folder

26

Homemakers and ERA, 1978

Folder

27

KNOW and ERA, 1970

Folder

28

Male VIP’s, 1970

Folder

29

ERA and Mormons, 1979-1981

Section: Nebraska NOW

Section: RA NOW YES

Folder

32

NOW and Politics, 1975

Folder

33

NOW ERA Countdown Campaign, 1982

Box 24

Folder

1

State of Emergency Campaign, Washington, 1978

Folder

2

Permission Forms, 1978

Folder

03-04

Pennsylvania Campaign, 1973-1978

Folder

5

Professional Women’s Caucus, 1970

Folder

6

ERA and Religion, 1973

Folder

7

Richmond Bus, 1978

Folder

8

Missouri NOW ERA Lawsuit, 1978

Folder

09-10

Campaign at State Levels, 1974

Folder

11

Social Action, 1978

Folder

12

Social Security, 1973

Folder

13

Supporters, 1974

Folder

14

Unions, 1974

Folder

15

Oklahoma Campaign, 1982

Folder

16

Equal Rights, 1968-1970

Folder

17

Ratification Groups, 1968-1972

Folder

18

May 7th Demonstration, 1969

Folder

19

March on the Post Office, 1978

Folder

20

July 9th Demonstration, 1979

Subseries 2.Sex Discrimination in the Work Place

Scope and Content Notes:

Sex discrimination in the workplace, specifically in job advertisements, hiring, and actual positions held once hired, was a particular interest of Evansgardner and Gardner and they participated in several court cases surrounding these issues. Most notable are NOW v.
Pittsburgh Press, Cease v. A & P, Weeks v. Bell, and Sharon Johnson v. University of Pittsburgh. NOW v. Pittsburgh Press was a court case in the early 1970’s dealing with sex discrimination in want ads. NOW fought to compel the
Pittsburgh Press to eliminate discriminatory headings because want ads were being published under headings listing gender qualifications and, within these headings, were stereotypical job ads. For example, technical jobs were listed under the "Male" heading while clerical jobs were listed under the "Female" heading. On the rare occasion that a job was listed under both headings, there were significant differences in pay scales. Cease v. A & P and Weeks v. Bell were two cases, also in the 1970’s, in which women were being discriminated against after they were hired. The two companies were discriminating in the areas of: job classification, compensation, seniority, promotions, scheduling and overtime, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. Sharon Johnson v. University of Pittsburgh was a case in the 1970’s concerning the issue of tenure denial based on gender. This subseries includes research, correspondence, laws, ordinances and guidelines, press, and statements and positions.

Folder

21

Correspondence and Clippings, 1969-1970

Folder

22-27

Reports on the Division of Employment Advertisements Based on Sex, 1969-1970

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) are two organizations that work to eliminate discrimination based on sex, color, race, or religion. When a person has a complaint toward an employer or other individual, these organizations work to investigate the charge. If it is determined that discrimination did, in fact, occur, it is the responsibility of these associations to enforce antidiscrimination laws. While the EEOC works on the federal level, complaints must be reviewed by local organizations before they can legally conduct their own investigations. In the early 1970s, NOW accused PHRC of improperly handling investigations, encouraging complainants to accept lower results, and discriminating against its own employees. As a result of this accusation, an appeal to investigate PHRC was presented to Governor Thornburgh. This subseries includes general information, complaints, and information relating to the investigation of PHRC.

NOW and Evansgardner were interested in all types of sex discrimination and did not limit themselves to discrimination in the workplace. They corresponded with several individuals and provided support and suggestions in a variety of situations, including sex discrimination in the public schools. They also kept current with court cases and laws and opinions related to sex discrimination throughout the 1970’s. Evansgardner also participated in several of her own court cases. After PHRC awarded a position she had applied for to a less qualified male candidate, Evansgardner accused the commission of sex discrimination. This subseries includes materials relating to legal disputes within NOW, court documents, correspondence, photos, and legal documents such as bills and orders.